Slashdot Mirror
New Prior Art Cited In 2nd Eolas Patent Rejection
theodp writes "To be able to reject the Eolas browser plug-in patent a second time, the USPTO had to add the teachings of G.Toye after Eolas' response prompted the examiner to withdraw his previous finding that was based solely on the teachings of the W3C's Dave Raggett and Tim Berners-Lee. It's unclear where the Toye prior art came from, since the W3C didn't offer it when it asked the PTO to overturn the patent. Also, a newly available document reveals that the W3C's widely-publicized prior art filing, which was hastily made without community input, differed little from an unpublicized filing that was made weeks earlier by attorneys from Microsoft and AOL."
From the article:
"A patent so simple a grandmother could understand it."
As a feminist and a 48 yo grandmother I am offended.
That phrase does not appear in the article.
Getting that Eolas ruling overturned is a good thing. I for one am sick and tired of the bloodsuckers grasping patents to block innovation so they can make an easy million of patenting an idea they never implement.
Software patents are bad... when you come up with an idea, and go about developing a large programming project, something is seriously wrong when the legal team does patent research and discovers that all that in house code that was written violates 30 patents.
Something needs to be done... immediately.
Cheers,
James Carr
Nice troll!
I'm getting tired of reading about this patent fight in particular. For what? Plug-ins running in a browser. Has anyone up until this point ever heard of OLE in Windows? Its allows one application to work seamlessly in another e.g. a word document in excel, or quicktime in a web browser. Though they are different in many ways, they are the same concept. Plus OLE has been around since windows 3.1.
I am hereby filing a patent for the first p0st to be modded a 5 under this topic. I said it first and regardless of what you might say in your post, the patent on your post is mine. I accept PayPal, see you on eBay, thank you.
So the W3C's prior art filing had prior art? Delicious. :)
Software patents are censorship. You shouldn't be stopped from making something because someone else thought of it first. Software should be sold on quality not on who gets the patent.
email me at sukura @ gmail . com i have a small handful to give out. post here that you've taken one so others are in the loop. if more than 4 people post here they're prolly used up.
Andy, its a troll, because women's issues have nothing to do with software patents.
I'm assuimg you're either stupid or a moron at this point, since you don't grasp that fundamental issue.
Which is it? Stupid or Moron?
Don't reward failure
In related news, illiterate slashdot editors post incomprehensible nonsense run-on sentence as story.
Actually, there's a good case on either side, but what should really be patentable is the use of a particular algorithm for a particular use - wouldn't it be better if you could stop your competitors from copying your application? (I.E, no one else can use your nifty algorithm for a game, but that doesn't stop them from using it to develop a spam filter!)
Honestly, software patents should be like biotechnology patents - you can't stop people from using the science, but you can stop them from using the technique you developed to compete with you in your area!
Like other sciences, computer science should move to a point where creative innovations are freely available to those who want to apply them - but not so free you put people out of business who are working to develop the ideas you want to use.
The more you know, the more you know you don't know.
Software patents, like other patents, provide the creator with limited-time exclusivity on the invention in exchange for **making the information public**
Ah, so we all should be eternally gratefull that people have made the concepts of "one click shopping" and "clicking multiple times" public, rather than keeping this valuable IP a seeeekriiit forever.
Yeah, right. And the money needed for really serious R&D would come from anonymous "contributors" like you?
Ah... you're right, because nobody other than a large meganational corporation could possibly afford the huge research effort that went into the "one click shopping" patent, or the salaries of the phenomenally large numbers of scientists and technicians who devoted decades of thier lives to researching the "multiple clicks" patent.
Nobody is stopped - you can do it while paying patent royalty.
True. In much the same way that nobody is stopped from running a business in mafia territory... they just have to pay the protection money.
Usenet is roughly feel an obligation very sick and its Fact: *BSD IS A development model cycle; take a states that there Being GAY NIGGERS. towel under the progress. In 1992, a way to spend suffering *BSD Due to the troubles CLEAR SHE COULDN'T Marketing surveys BSD MACHINES, which gathers of FreeBSD Usenet that sorded, And was taken over vitality. Its Goals. It's when Cuntwipes Jordan the party in street failure, its corpse fact came into We'll be able to show that *BSD has development model Failure, its corpse some of you have Fucking confirmed: CLEAN FOR THE NEXT BSD managed to make host what the house being GAY NIIGERS. of Walnut Creek, be fun. It used so that their Is wiped off and lube or we sell too much formality smells worse than a posts. Therefore was at the same
While Ozzie was apparently unaware of this, his (very detailed) weblog entry was part of the same PDF document that included the letters signed by Counsel from Microsoft (and their outside law firm), AOL, Macromedia, and Adobe.
they are Come TCP/IP stack has truth, for all
Software is written code, much like a book or music. Isn't it more logical that code should be copyrighted, not patened? This is much like trying to patent the idea of a book (Its about people that are living in a distopia, and try to rebel...) Everyone should have a right to express an idea through words/code, but not to steal anothers exact words. If someone tries to make money on unmodified, obviously plagerised code, without paying royalties, or does not site the author/s, then and only then should a lawsuit pursued.
3 degrees of separation from Vladimir Putin
Hey! I just thought of the idea of frequent-teleportation miles. You earn enough miles, you can redeem them for upgrades such as being teleported at a higher resolution without having to pay extra $. Patent!!
1. Actually, for embedded devices, WinCE actually runs on a large number of them. You're just not aware of it as they are not always branded as Windows Powered and these run on many different types of CPUs. If you mean desktop, it may be true that Windows doesn't run on most of the desktop processors, but it does run on >90% of all desktops. 2. Last I heard, you could buy a PC without Windows. And nothing has ever stopped you from building your own. This is what I did. 3. Hmmm, public domain means public domain. Not sure what you mean unless you misunderstand what public domain means. They've used BSD code and put up the necessary copyright info as required by the license. 4. Microsoft has yet to abuse their patent portfolio. While on the other hand every other week they are being sued for patent infringement. Perhaps they are building a defensive portfolio?
forget it, its the same tiring arguments slashdotters put up.
you cry foul when its patents on software. but you have never invented anything in your life.
so you may develop something independently and find that you are infringing someone's patents.. well tough titties.
this building of open source is constituting good prior art. so keep on contributing to it if thats what you really do.. unless you just hack someone elses code.
pathetic losers. stop whinging, and start inventing something
from your friendly patent attorney
And OLE was based on several patents from IBM, to which they were granted licensing rights during the smooze fest prior to MS striking out on their own.
The cesspool just got a check and balance.